18 U.S.C. § 495
Contracts, deeds, and powers of attorney
Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any deed, power of attorney, order, certificate, receipt, contract, or other writing, for the purpose of obtaining or receiving, or of enabling any other person, either directly or indirectly, to obtain or receive from the United States or any officers or agents thereof, any sum of money; or
Whoever utters or publishes as true any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited; or
Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or officer of the United States, any such writing in support of, or in relation to, any account or claim, with intent to defraud the United States, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 406
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1950–2025 · leading case: United States v. Ladonna Kay Oliver, 908 F.2d 260 (8th Cir. 1990).
United States v. Ladonna Kay Oliver, 908 F.2d 260 (8th Cir. 1990). “§ 1702 (1988); and forging, uttering and publishing the check with the intent to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495 . Ms. Oliver maintained her innocence, however, contending that although she knew Mr.”
United States v. Joseph Indelicato, United States of Am. v. Richard F. Nutile, 611 F.2d 376 (1st Cir. 1979). “§ 1708 , 1 three counts of uttering and publishing as true the same United States Treasury checks with an intent to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 495 , 2 and of aiding and abetting on all counts, 18 U.”
Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103 (1990). “*127 Gilbert was a prosecution under 18 U. S. C. § 495 , which punishes anyone who "falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits" any document for the purpose of obtaining money from the United States.”
United States v. Ella Louise Forbes & Lillie Mae Berry, 816 F.2d 1006 (5th Cir. 1987). “Sufficiency of the Evidence Forbes argues that the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence of her lack of authority to cash the check and thus her conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 495 for forgery must be reversed.”
United States v. Ricky Kevin Smith, 915 F.2d 959 (5th Cir. 1990). “On December 1, 1987, the government filed a one-count superseding infor *961 mation charging Smith with uttering and publishing as true a United States Treasury check for $406 bearing a falsely-made and forged endorsement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495 . Pursuant to a plea…”
United States v. Alex G. Merklinger, 16 F.3d 670 (6th Cir. 1994). “5 The *675 Court held that “[t]he instruments referred to in the first part of the section, the false making or forging of which, with the intent stated, is made an offence, probably are forged instruments in a strict technical sense.”
Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650 (1962). “§ 1001 , and 18 U. S. C. § 495 , in that he had allegedly falsified his clients’ returns (§ 7206 (2)), forged their endorsements on government tax-refund checks (§ 495), and, by endorsing such checks, had made false statements as to a matter within the jurisdiction of a…”
United States v. Thomas J. Faust, 850 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1988). “GOODWIN, Circuit Judge: Thomas Faust appeals his convictions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 495 and 641 (1982) for forgery and embezzlement.”
United States v. Joseph Calabro, 467 F.2d 973 (2d Cir. 1972). “Each of the eight appellants was convicted on one or more counts of forging and uttering United States Series E Savings Bonds and United States postal money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 495 or of conspiring to commit those offenses, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Charles Robert White, 611 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1980). “After a jury trial, White was acquitted on the possession and uttering counts but was convicted on the forgery count under 18 U.S.C. § 495 . 1 White asserts four points of error on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the…”
United States v. Clyde Eugene Garner, United States of Am. v. Lorene Brown, United States of Am. v. Dennis Dwayne Garner, 529 F.2d 962 (6th Cir. 1976). “It is clear that the proof presented at the trials of Clyde Eugene Garner and Lorene Brown and the facts stipulated by Dennis Dwayne Garner are sufficient to support a conviction for conspiracy to violate 18 U.”
United States v. Tami M. Lecoe, 936 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1991). “She was charged with five violations of 18 U.S.C. § 495 , 1 and seven violations of 18 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.